This isn't about Libby, but I didn't see a place to post a response to your stupid weekend column about the Colorado Supreme Court being the editors of the paper.
In principle, you are quite right. But the absolute lack of judgment shown by you and your cohorts make these judges and many of your critics want for some sort of oversight. Talk about prurient interests. You do so much to just sell papers that you've lost the values that the paper once held dear.
So, let anyone edit you. You aren't doing a very good job of it at all.
November 4, 2005
2:40 PM
DJ writes:
I have been following the I. Scooter Libby, Judith Miller and Valerie Plame issue. However, I see no one in the press asking a fundamental question. That question is; has the press been intentionally compromised by the current administration in the white house? I ask this question, because although no one has been on television saying so, was the press used or were these reporters positioned and steered to promote the white house agenda? Regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, it causes one to pause and think about what the press reports and whether or not the press can perform objective critical analysis of any administration or public policy issue. Robert Novak, Armstrong Williams, and Judith Miller are just a few examples of reporters whom have contaminated the publics view of what the press reports to the american people and what role they personally play in the stories they publish. It would seem to me the press needs to police its own and understand reporters whom allow themselves to knowingly be used or market republican and democratic agendas should not be given the title of reporter. These individuals have caused tremendous damage to the public, the press and government. The events of the past few years have muddied the waters for the public in how they view the press. How is the American public suppose to ascertain when we are being told the truth, if the press is behaving like advocates for political agendas?
November 10, 2005
4:35 PM
Calvin writes:
That is the best post I've seen on any of this.
November 12, 2005
10:04 PM
Yaakov Watkins writes:
This is ridiculous. According to UN statistics 5,000 children a month were dying in Iraq before the war. Now they aren't. In 20 months, we saved 100,000 children from death, jumpstarted democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Syria, jumpstated women's rights in the middle east (a woman ran for office in Egypt), and stopped Saddam's genocide of the Kurdish people. Not to mention sparked an investigation that proved that the UN had been subverted by a dictator.
Now people are complaining about who knew what when and how much and whether Bush lied. With that track record, who cares if Bush lied?
November 2, 2005
8:18 PM
edmac writes:
This isn't about Libby, but I didn't see a place to post a response to your stupid weekend column about the Colorado Supreme Court being the editors of the paper.
In principle, you are quite right. But the absolute lack of judgment shown by you and your cohorts make these judges and many of your critics want for some sort of oversight. Talk about prurient interests. You do so much to just sell papers that you've lost the values that the paper once held dear.
So, let anyone edit you. You aren't doing a very good job of it at all.
November 4, 2005
2:40 PM
DJ writes:
I have been following the I. Scooter Libby, Judith Miller and Valerie Plame issue. However, I see no one in the press asking a fundamental question. That question is; has the press been intentionally compromised by the current administration in the white house? I ask this question, because although no one has been on television saying so, was the press used or were these reporters positioned and steered to promote the white house agenda? Regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, it causes one to pause and think about what the press reports and whether or not the press can perform objective critical analysis of any administration or public policy issue. Robert Novak, Armstrong Williams, and Judith Miller are just a few examples of reporters whom have contaminated the publics view of what the press reports to the american people and what role they personally play in the stories they publish. It would seem to me the press needs to police its own and understand reporters whom allow themselves to knowingly be used or market republican and democratic agendas should not be given the title of reporter. These individuals have caused tremendous damage to the public, the press and government. The events of the past few years have muddied the waters for the public in how they view the press. How is the American public suppose to ascertain when we are being told the truth, if the press is behaving like advocates for political agendas?
November 10, 2005
4:35 PM
Calvin writes:
That is the best post I've seen on any of this.
November 12, 2005
10:04 PM
Yaakov Watkins writes:
This is ridiculous. According to UN statistics 5,000 children a month were dying in Iraq before the war. Now they aren't. In 20 months, we saved 100,000 children from death, jumpstarted democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Syria, jumpstated women's rights in the middle east (a woman ran for office in Egypt), and stopped Saddam's genocide of the Kurdish people. Not to mention sparked an investigation that proved that the UN had been subverted by a dictator.
Now people are complaining about who knew what when and how much and whether Bush lied. With that track record, who cares if Bush lied?